The civil cases

Two suits, filed two days apart in January 2026, in Norfolk Superior Court. They run the same theory the defense ran criminally: uncoordinated overmedication and premature discharge caused a psychotic break. Hearing: 2026-10-28 at 2:30 pm. [S84]

Both complaints, both docket sheets, and the operative second amended complaint have been read in the original. [S205][S206][S207][S208][S209] The Trial Court's document images turned out to be freely downloadable without a login. Everything below marked with those two citations comes from the filings themselves rather than from reporting on them. The full extraction, including the corrections the documents forced, is at raw/s9-civil-complaints-primary.md.

Docket and filing facts below are from the complaints and the two docket sheets [S205][S206][S207][S208][S209].

Neither pleading is evidence. Each is one side's allegations, drafted by counsel, though both are pleaded from medical records their authors had.

And one caveat that governs everything sourced to [S205]. The docket shows Patrick Clancy filed an amended complaint on 2026-03-27. The document read for this corpus is the original of 2026-01-20. The amended complaint is the operative pleading and has not been obtained, so paragraph numbers and allegations cited here are from a superseded version. [S207]

Patrick Clancy v. Tufts, Jollotta, Aster Mental Health, South Shore Health

Docket 2682CV00071. eFiled 2026-01-20, docketed 2026-01-21, on behalf of himself and as personal representative of the estates of Cora, Dawson and Callan. He was appointed personal representative on 2025-12-03, in Plymouth Probate Court dockets PL25P1826EA, PL25P1827EA and PL25P1828EA. [S205][S85][S156]

Counts, from the document. I. Wrongful death. II. Conscious pain and suffering, G.L. c. 229 s. 6. III. HIPAA, against South Shore Health only. Punitive damages sought; press reports the demand as more than $1 million. [S205][S85]

The HIPAA count has a date, and it explains the timing of the suit. On 2026-01-15 South Shore Health disclosed to Patrick that on 2025-11-17 it had discovered that one of its employees had inappropriately accessed Patrick's, Cora's, Dawson's and Callan's medical records. He filed five days after that disclosure, three years after the deaths. [S205]

Theory. "If Defendants had not acted negligently, and rather had provided adequate care, it is more likely than not that Patrick and Lindsay's children would still be alive today." [S85]

Allegations. Tufts diagnosed generalized anxiety and adjustment disorder and prescribed sertraline; "immediately" she felt "awful," with insomnia, decreased appetite, worse anxiety and depression, a reaction "atypical" at that dose that "should have prompted Dr. Tufts to assess why," including "testing of blood plasma levels of medication." She did not. By December two providers had layered on trazodone, fluoxetine, zolpidem, mirtazapine, clonazepam and quetiapine, "in an ad hoc manner," without monitoring; eight medications between 2022-11-16 and 2022-12-05. The Women and Infants day program found her overmedicated and misdiagnosed, discharged her, and contacted Jollotta, who "never received a response." [S85][S156][S192]

On the appointments, from the document. Paragraph 63 pleads that "Dr. Tufts and Nurse Jollotta regularly met with Lindsay via video conference rather than assessing her in person," which gave them an incomplete picture because they could not assess her body language, and that the visits were too short. It gives the lengths from the notes: 17 minutes on 2023-01-06, another 17 three days later, 17 on 2023-01-16, and 17 at the final appointment on 2023-01-23. On 01-06 Tufts recorded the psychiatric condition as "Deteriorating" and the medication as not effective; on 01-23 she recorded Sleep, Medication Efficacy and Insight all "Poor" and the condition "Unchanged." Tufts's answer to this on cross was that the 17 minutes was the therapy component, not the whole session. [S205][S37]

And one allegation that cuts the other way. Paragraph 69 pleads that Nurse Jollotta "recognized the risk and asked Lindsay multiple times if she had any intent to harm her children" and that Lindsay denied it. That is Patrick's own filing recording a clinician asking the right question and getting a denial. [S205]

The complaint quotes her medical records on the killings: she "started hearing a compelling and unrecognizable singular male voice that told her 'this is your last chance' and that she had to 'take them with [her].'" [S156]

Responses. South Shore Health: "cares deeply about and prioritizes the safety of our patients... Given that this matter is now in litigation, we cannot comment on the specific allegations." Aster: none. Tufts asked that the suit be dismissed. [S85][S186]

Lindsay Clancy v. Tufts, Jollotta, Aster, South Shore Health, McLean, Women & Infants

Docket 2682CV00081. eFiled 2026-01-22 at 4:12 pm, docketed 2026-01-23. [S206]

A correction, and then a correction of the correction. This page originally said eleven defendants, following the press [S84]. On reading the complaint PDF it was changed to six. The docket shows the press was right and the second change was wrong. The sequence: the original complaint of 2026-01-22 named six; an amended complaint followed five days later on 2026-01-27, which is almost certainly what late-January reporting described; and the second amended complaint, allowed 2026-06-04 and filed 2026-06-08, names eleven and is the operative pleading. [S206][S208][S209][S84]

The eleven defendants and the role each is alleged to have played, from the second amended complaint read in the original: [S209]

The pleading's own summary is that each "failed to properly diagnose Lindsay's bipolar disorder with postpartum onset and instead subjected her to a disorganized, uncoordinated course of polypharmacy." And, on its second page: "Her husband advocated for her. Her family drove from out of state to help care for her children. And still, the medical system failed her completely." [S209]

Counts in the original complaint. I. Negligence and medical malpractice. II. Loss of parental consortium. III. Loss of spousal consortium. Plus vicarious liability against Aster and South Shore Health. Punitive damages sought. The counts in the second amended complaint were not read; only its first four pages were. [S206][S209]

Allegations. A "catastrophic failure" to diagnose bipolar disorder; a "disorganized, uncoordinated course of polypharmacy"; post-antidepressant insomnia as "a critical red flag for bipolar disorder"; a sister's postpartum anxiety history dismissed; Women and Infants failing to rule out bipolar disorder; McLean's "grossly inadequate care" on a holiday "skeleton crew" and discharge after five days without monitoring; hallucinations and suicidal ideation continuing after discharge. Seroquel is where her mental health "took a dramatic turn for the worse." [S84][S157]

Her own account, as pleaded. Twelve weeks after Callan's birth, mania turning to anxiety and depression; three hours of sleep; "intrusive thoughts" that the complaint calls auditory hallucinations. She searched the map of the errand "because she was scared to be alone." When Patrick left: "a loud, demanding, repetitious voice: 'This is your last chance. Kill the children so you can kill yourself. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE. YOU HAVE TO KILL THE KIDS SO YOU CAN KILL YOURSELF.'" "I lost all control. My body started acting without any control on my part. I was just following commands, 'all action.' This voice demanded action." "Go to God, baby." [S157]

Expert, from the document. Dr. Margaret Spinelli met Lindsay for five hours at Tewksbury on 2024-06-11 and spoke with her by telephone for three hours on 2024-09-06. She also interviewed Patrick Clancy, Lindsay's sister Allison Olga, Lindsay's mother, and Susan Clancy. Her diagnosis: Bipolar Disorder I, severe, with psychosis and anxious distress, with postpartum onset. Her three findings on the providers: they "never seemed to communicate with one another"; "no one ever asked her to describe the content of her 'intrusive thoughts' which were in fact, hallucinations"; and she was repeatedly given antidepressants "instead of a mood stabilizer." Her conclusion: "She did all that she could to obtain the appropriate treatment." She was on the defense's trial list and was not called. [S206][S157][S111]

Dr. Zeizel, also in the complaint. He concurred with Spinelli and Resnick, opining that her course was "significantly complicated by polypharmacy and the involvement of multiple prescribers," and that the medications "appear to have paradoxically exacerbated her underlying psychiatric vulnerability, precipitating a state of manic psychosis characterized by compelling command hallucinations." He noted her parents' "shock" and "devastation" at the depth of her decline, indicating they had not fully understood its severity. [S206]

Two pleaded facts that bear on contested points elsewhere in this corpus. The complaint pleads that on 2023-01-16 the hallucinations said "You should harm the children" and "You should kill yourself," which would place command-type content eight days before the killings [S206]; and it pleads the fall as "approximately twenty feet" and as a jump, as does Patrick's complaint. Both are allegations, not findings. See 08-open-questions.md. [S206][S205]

Damages. More than $1 million, for malpractice and "loss of relationships with children and husband." [S84]

Responses. Tufts denied the allegations and requested a medical malpractice tribunal. McLean: "We mourn the tragic loss of three children and allegations in this case." Women and Infants declined comment. [S84][S186]

Counsel, and a significant addition. Rosemary Curran Scapicchio, BBO #558312 signed the complaint [S206]. On 2026-03-20 Andrew C. Meyer, Jr. (BBO 344300) and William John Thompson (BBO 559275) of Lubin and Meyer PC entered appearances for her, which is the point at which the best-known plaintiff-side medical malpractice firm in Massachusetts took over the civil case from her criminal counsel [S208]. Scapicchio said after the mistrial that the civil case "will focus on alleged failures by medical providers... including claims that she was overprescribed medications and released without adequate treatment." [S62]

The docket in 2682CV00071

Retrieved 2026-09-05 from the Massachusetts Trial Court's public case access. Full extraction at raw/s9b-docket-2682CV00071.md. [S207]

Judge: Hon. Michael Doolin, by special assignment approved 2026-02-03 by Chief Justice Michael D. Ricciuti. A clerk reviewed the case as a One Trial matter the same day and it stayed in the Superior Court. Jury trial demanded on filing.

Counsel of record.

Cooper is the lawyer who answered the online defamation campaign on Patrick Clancy's behalf. [S66]

Where the case actually stands. Service was accepted 2026-02-20 by Tufts and Aster and 2026-02-27 by Jollotta and South Shore. Both defence groups noticed motions to dismiss in March. Patrick then amended the complaint on 2026-03-27. All four defendants responded with a joint motion to dismiss all counts of the amended complaint, e-filed 2026-04-22 and docketed 04-24, with a memorandum, a Rule 9C affidavit and Rule 9A document lists; Patrick filed an opposition. No defendant has filed an answer.

The 2026-10-28 hearing is a Rule 12 hearing on those motions, before Judge Doolin, in person at Dedham. This corpus previously described it only as a hearing in the civil suits. It was first scheduled for 2026-10-07 at 2:00 pm and canceled by the court on 07-23.

No medical malpractice tribunal entry appears on the docket. Press reported that Tufts requested one [S84]; nothing records one being convened. Under G.L. c. 231 s. 60B it would ordinarily follow.

Case-management deadlines. Discovery closes 2028-01-11. Final pretrial conference 2028-07-10. Judgment tickler 2029-01-22.

The docket in 2682CV00081, and the tribunal

Retrieved 2026-09-05. Full extraction at raw/s9c-docket-2682CV00081-and-second-amended-complaint.md. [S208]

Same judge, Hon. Michael Doolin, specially assigned 2026-01-29. Jury demanded. No hearing is currently scheduled.

Answers are on file, all with jury demands: Tufts and Aster on 2026-06-17; Jollotta, Paul and South Shore Health on 06-23; Goodheart, McLean and Madva on 08-11. Diaz and Dukes have neither appeared nor answered, and no counsel is listed for either. Two emergency motions to extend time for service were needed and both were allowed. An earlier motion to amend was vacated under Rule 60(a) for failure to comply with Superior Court Rule 9A, and Dr. Madva opposed being added as a defendant; the amendment was allowed anyway. [S208]

The medical malpractice tribunal is the live event in this case, and it is the sharpest difference between the two suits. Under G.L. c. 231 s. 60B a tribunal of a judge, a physician and a lawyer decides whether the plaintiff's offer of proof raises a legitimate question of liability or shows only an unfortunate result.

No tribunal had been convened or heard as of the last docket entry, 2026-08-19. This confirms and dates the press report that Tufts requested one. [S208][S84]

The offer of proof, #18, is the single most valuable document on either docket for this corpus, because s. 60B requires it to summarise the expert evidence supporting the claim. It is the only substantive entry on either docket carrying no document image, and it was not obtained.

Case-management deadlines mirror the other case: discovery closes 2028-01-13, final pretrial 2028-07-11.

How the civil cases touched the criminal trial

• Tufts, Jollotta and Paul testified for the Commonwealth while defendants in both suits. Reddington put the 17-minute allegation to Tufts on cross; she answered that the therapy component was 17 minutes, not the whole session. [S37]
• Reddington attacked Tufts's board-certification timing, telehealth-only practice, and failure to obtain records; those are the civil complaints' themes. [S37][S42]
• Heilbrun declined to evaluate the quality of the treating care: "that's not something that I evaluated." [S109]
• The defense's civil expert, Spinelli, and the Commonwealth's grand jury expert, Abi Zeid Daou, were both on the trial lists and neither testified. [S111]

Watch

• 2026-10-28 hearing.
• Whether the tribunal is convened and what it finds.
• The Rule 12 ruling. If the motions to dismiss succeed in whole or part, the case may not reach discovery at all. [S207]
• The tribunal in 2682CV00081, demanded by Tufts, Jollotta and Paul in August 2026 and not yet convened. Its finding is the next real test of the medical case. [S208]
• Whether a tribunal is also demanded in Patrick's case after the Rule 12 ruling.
• Whether Diaz and Dukes are ever served and appear. [S208]
• The amended complaint of 2026-03-27, the motion to dismiss and memorandum, and the opposition. All are docketed with document images. [S207]
• Discovery could eventually put the treating providers' records into the case, but not soon: discovery does not close until 2028-01-11, the case is still at the pleadings stage, and discovery material is not ordinarily docketed publicly at all. [S207]
• Whether an amended complaint in 2682CV00081 adds the five clinicians the press counted as defendants. [S206][S84]
• The docket sheets themselves. Neither has been read: masscourts.org is gated behind a reCAPTCHA this corpus will not bypass.

Trial testimony bearing on the civil theories

Added 2026-09-06 from the day 9 transcript [S308, ASR, unverified]. Both suits run the theory that uncoordinated overmedication and premature discharge caused a psychotic break [S205][S206]. Three pieces of criminal-trial testimony bear on it directly, and they do not all point the same way.

For the plaintiffs. A treating clinician conceded on cross that she had never treated a case of postpartum psychosis:

"How many women have you treated that were suffering from postpartum psychosis?" "I don't recall... I think it would stick in my memory. So I don't think that I probably have." "You don't think you probably have?" "I don't think I have. I haven't seen any."

That is the sharpest version of the failure-to-recognise theory anywhere in this corpus.

Also for the plaintiffs. Between 1 and 3 January 2023, on a locked ward, no clinician recorded any symptom or concern for psychosis, and none was observed on 3 January. Twenty-one days later the children were dead. See 06-medication-psychiatric.md.

Against the plaintiffs, on the telehealth point. Dr. Tufts testified that whether an appointment was in person or by video was controlled by "both" her and the patient, and that if a patient said "I don't want to do telehealth, I only want to do in person," that was an option. The corpus records that Tufts never met Clancy in person across 25-minute video sessions [S19][S29][S37]. What is new is that in-person was available on request.

And the other half, from day 10, which cuts the other way [S313, ASR, unverified]. On cross Tufts confirmed 14 appointments from September to January, every one by telemedicine, and that she first saw Clancy in person when she walked into the courtroom. Asked whether she ever suggested an in-person visit:

"Talking with her over the video did not seem like an issue. It didn't seem like there was anything that I was missing or that there was any need to see her in person."

Read the two findings together. In-person was available if the patient asked, and the treating psychiatrist never suggested it because she judged she was missing nothing. Neither states the question fairly on its own. On the pandemic as an explanation, she said that by December 2022 "we were definitely feeling more comfortable about being face to face with people. But I think it was still something that we thought about."

The medication-trigger theory, put to the prescriber and denied. On the 2023-01-23 appointment, the day before the killings, Tufts testified it "made sense to slowly titrate the amitriptyline so that we could get her to a dose that reduced her depression so that she would feel better." Then: "That pushed her over the edge, didn't it?" "I don't think so." [S313, ASR, unverified]

Three further answers from the same cross, all bearing on the coordination theory: Tufts did not know Clancy was researching medications, treatments and drug interactions online; she never asked; and Patrick could not call her.

The coordination gap, described by a defendant. Tufts testified she learned Clancy had enrolled in the South Shore perinatal mental health clinic from the patient, on 2022-11-22, after it had happened, and that "it sounded like she was going to be transferring her care there." Asked how Clancy then had an appointment with her on 1 December: "Patients can schedule their own appointments. I'm not involved in the scheduling. I can schedule a patient an appointment if someone asks me to, but they can schedule it without my awareness." [S308, ASR, unverified]

That is the uncoordinated-care theory both suits run, stated as ordinary practice rather than as a failure. Tufts also could not explain a 20-day gap between the 2 November and 22 November appointments: "I would really be guessing if I said."

Note what this is. Criminal-trial testimony is not evidence in the civil cases, no civil defendant has yet been found liable, and neither pleading has been tested. This section records overlap, not findings.